• Source 2 screenshot allegedly leaked
    249 replies, posted
BC2-level destruction would make Gmod so much fun.
I'd go for some dynamic destructible environments, Metro 2033 was awesome in that chucking a pipe bomb in a tiled corridor would completely fuck it up, shattering the tiles and filling the place with smoke. Metro Last Light had some neatness in that concrete pillars and such would chip away when shot. I can see it now, Gordon bashing his way through a wall to fuck up a combine soldier. Would add another layer toward the use of the crowbar, which is currently a last resort and an ammo saver when in the presence of headcrabs.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43697140]Isn't BSP a very outdated format? If they made it better I guess but idk[/QUOTE] Didn't the Quake 3 engine use BSP? :v:
quake 1 used BSP
Also another thing which would be amazing is if they rewrote the Multiplayer stuff from the ground up, like Source's current one is okay but when it comes to managing destruction or props that arent static in a huge quantity it chokes And bigger maps along with better vehicle management would be a huge plus, like could you imagine L4D3 on Source 2 with you driving a car smashing the fuck out of zombies?
iirc bsp was actually invented for doom; it was a major innovation that carmack came up with to solve some kind of error caused by a set of stairs romero had designed
Apparently these screenshots are from 2011
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43694593]I just want to see the new tools, I'm so keen for a new hammer[/QUOTE] Well if you look carefully the bottom slide says stuff about tools being updated. [img]http://i.imgur.com/FmAmNWZ.png[/img]
It looks like it could be Source 2. Not very impressive graphically, but that would make sense because Valve would want an engine that can run on every computer and not just the ones that can run Crysis. Then again, it could just be someone making a really pretty scene with Source 1 and fooling everyone.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;43697802]It looks like it could be Source 2. Not very impressive graphically, but that would make sense because Valve would want an engine that can run on every computer and not just the ones that can run Crysis. Then again, it could just be someone making a really pretty scene with Source 1 and fooling everyone.[/QUOTE] it's not mean't to be "Super amazing" graphically source has always been a jack of all trades.
[QUOTE=zombini;43697569]I'd go for some dynamic destructible environments, Metro 2033 was awesome in that chucking a pipe bomb in a tiled corridor would completely fuck it up, shattering the tiles and filling the place with smoke. Metro Last Light had some neatness in that concrete pillars and such would chip away when shot.[/QUOTE] That's PhysX
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43697611]Also another thing which would be amazing is if they rewrote the Multiplayer stuff from the ground up, like Source's current one is okay but when it comes to managing destruction or props that arent static in a huge quantity it chokes And bigger maps along with better vehicle management would be a huge plus, like could you imagine L4D3 on Source 2 with you driving a car smashing the fuck out of zombies?[/QUOTE] Rewriting stuff "from scratch" is always a really bad idea because it's never a guarantee that you will magically write the new stuff without bugs. They need a major overhaul, but not a complete rewrite
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43697887]Rewriting stuff "from scratch" is always a really bad idea because it's never a guarantee that you will magically write the new stuff without bugs. They need a major overhaul, but not a complete rewrite[/QUOTE] True, but I'm sure they've improved it, everyone knows how shitty SourceMP can get when its got tons of stuff happening at once [editline]28th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Coffee;43697716]Well if you look carefully the bottom slide says stuff about tools being updated. [img]http://i.imgur.com/FmAmNWZ.png[/img][/QUOTE] I know but I want to see screenshots and overviews of the new Hammer editor, not hear about what it can do
If a leak like this had happened roughly three years ago I would probably be very excited.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43697140]Isn't BSP a very outdated format? If they made it better I guess but idk[/QUOTE] It's old, but the issues it solves (Precomputed visibility) is quite useful to have when you can't do it in real time (Of course computers can do that in real time now, to a much finer grained extent too, IIRC one of the nice things Crysis did was visibility computation on a per triangle basis) And it also lets you bake the lighting into the map, so static unchanging lights don't need to be computed at runtime (And then you can do nice stuff like global illumination on crap hardware because it's just a texture, hence why HL2 could do it back in 2004). Modern systems can approximate it fairly well in real time though, although it is just an approximation, so it's often low resolution.
Isn't every modern FPS engine loosely based on like quake or something? What if Valve was going ham all these years and rewrote a brand new engine completely from scratch? an engine that will be the base of every game in the next few years?
[QUOTE=Alternativ;43698037]Isn't every modern FPS engine loosely based on like quake or something? What if Valve was going ham all these years and rewrote a brand new engine completely from scratch? an engine that will be the base of every game in the next few years?[/QUOTE] IIRC Call Of Duty still uses a lot of stuff from the Quake ID engine because the IW engine is just a heavily modified Quake Engine I don't know if Valve would do that because it'd be time consuming and very costly, but like Max said they probably overhauled great portions of the Source engine, rewrote some things and cleaned up all the old stuff to make it run a little faster
[QUOTE=Alternativ;43698037]Isn't every modern FPS engine loosely based on like quake or something? What if Valve was going ham all these years and rewrote a brand new engine completely from scratch? an engine that will be the base of every game in the next few years?[/QUOTE] The reason most FPS-friendly engines are branched from the Quake-series of engines is that it does it and it does it well. Things like Cryengine and Dunia are distinctly different (and I'm not sure they're related to Quake at all(?)) because the games they were built for require wide open spaces in order to work properly. The way Quake (and Quake-derived engines) tend to deal with rendering spaces relies heavily on a 'room' system, where the world is broken up into distinct 'rooms' with smoke and mirrors connecting them. Even seemingly open maps (Day of Defeat, for instance) are split into rooms, with skybox brushes (etc) breaking them up into chunks the engine can manage. If Valve sees their future games utilizing a broader and more free-form 'go anywhere' geographical setup in a meaningful and worthwhile way then they might break the mold. But given everything they've done in the past and the general trend that their games tend to follow, I don't see them making a Far Cry 3/Skyrim style game that would necessitate a completely fresh start
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43697140]Isn't BSP a very outdated format? If they made it better I guess but idk[/QUOTE] The basic principle of bsp is quite brilliant, even though it's old it doesn't limit you from doing anything. So there really is no reason why valve should get rid of it.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;43695945]Does this mean no more teeter-totter puzzles? I'm not sure I can handle anything more difficult.[/QUOTE] Who would want anything more? See-saw puzzles are the best, and a foundation for the brilliance of modern gaming.
[QUOTE=nVidia;43698086]The basic principle of bsp is quite brilliant, even though it's old it doesn't limit you from doing anything. So there really is no reason why valve should get rid of it.[/QUOTE] The BSP algorithm doesn't like huge open world maps and prefers everything to be linear which in my opinion holds back so much potential the source engine can do
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43698121]The BSP algorithm doesn't like huge open world maps and prefers everything to be linear which in my opinion holds back so much potential the source engine can do[/QUOTE] Valve's gameplay style tends to favour a more closed-in, heavily tailored and more intimate design philosophy that I feel is best supported by the current format
all i hope whit this new engine excluding the cool lighting and other stuff which i can't remember a proper SDK, seriously, the actual source one is realy outdated, oh and also a better compile system
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43698121]The BSP algorithm doesn't like huge open world maps and prefers everything to be linear which in my opinion holds back so much potential the source engine can do[/QUOTE] Unreal 3 has bsp, but that doesn't mean you have to only make closed spaces. You still can totally use models and huge terrains.
[QUOTE=nVidia;43698267]Unreal 3 has bsp, but that doesn't mean you have to only make closed spaces. You still can totally use models and huge terrains.[/QUOTE] oh my bad Less suited for truly free form and open maps though right?
Oh man, imagine what Team Fortress would look like on Source 2 Imagine Killer is dead with 1960's spy asthetics [sp]with a billion hats and fifty gay furry porn sprays piled on top[/sp]
[QUOTE=nVidia;43698267]Unreal 3 has bsp, but that doesn't mean you have to only make closed spaces. You still can totally use models and huge terrains.[/QUOTE] i think most modern, professional things are near 100% made of meshes these days in UE though. i could be mistaken but that's the impression i got that said, using an fps engine for any sort of big, free-roaming idea is probably a bad idea. they have a set player scale that determines a lot of things. it's a massive unnecessary ballache to try and force an fps engine to be something else. better to just start from the ground up with your own controller in an engine like unity
[QUOTE=nVidia;43698267]Unreal 3 has bsp, but that doesn't mean you have to only make closed spaces. You still can totally use models and huge terrains.[/QUOTE] I think you might be mistaking CSG for BSP. BSP is really outdated these days. It was great for optimisation a long time ago but it doesn't make sense when levels are so much more complex. It doesn't matter what kind of game you're making, it's just an old technique and it doesn't scale well.
I hope they increase the size that maps can be Playing through HL2 you realize how small each section is because there's a small load transition between them, and they really do feel close together now days
If this is only graphic update but not with physics simulation update like frostbite or cry engine, then Source 2 might be behind times. Hope Source 2 supports destructible environment and dynamic water simulation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.